Vergne letting Vettel through in Abu Dhabi

Sorry if this is already discussed. I was wondering, does this count as a team order? Should this be legal?

I was a tad annoyed with it - it's a huge unfair advantage that Red Bull have, though perhaps, Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.

Anyhow, team orders are legal, within the team, as long as it's not for a race win, right? What do the rules say about this? Cause to me this was a team order.

Sorry if this is already discussed. I was wondering, does this count as a team order? Should this be legal?

I was a tad annoyed with it - it's a huge unfair advantage that Red Bull have, though perhaps, Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.

Anyhow, team orders are legal, within the team, as long as it's not for a race win, right? What do the rules say about this? Cause to me this was a team order.

I am annoyed as well with what I perceive as a conflict of interest and other sixty things that I do not like about one owner can have two teams in this series, and I was bitching about it a few times in the past, but remain a lonely voice in the forest; no too many are vocal or care. In terms of not inerfering with championship in closing stages of the season is quite common (unspoken) courtesy to either drivers involved by cars which are out of it, so I expect.

Do you really believe what you are saying?Anyway, who cares, we all know it is the second Red Bull team.

So what? Yes it is Red Bull second team, but what exactly would Vergne gain by holding up Vettel? Vettel would have got past anyway, just as he did with other driver in front of Vergne. There was no question of Vergne holding up Vettel for long.

I am annoyed as well with what I perceive as a conflict of interest and other sixty things that I do not like about one owner can have two teams in this series, and I was bitching about it a few times in the past, but remain a lonely voice in the forest; no too many are vocal or care. In terms of not inerfering with championship in closing stages of the season is quite common (unspoken) courtesy to either drivers involved by cars which are out of it, so I expect.

The reality is it is not the team and/or teams, the one owner, or the drivers themselves.

Sorry if this is already discussed. I was wondering, does this count as a team order? Should this be legal?

I was a tad annoyed with it - it's a huge unfair advantage that Red Bull have, though perhaps, Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.

Anyhow, team orders are legal, within the team, as long as it's not for a race win, right? What do the rules say about this? Cause to me this was a team order.

it would appear it's actually only Red Bull enjoying this advantage, because Sauber's Perez overtook both Massa and Alonso, for 2nd place, at Ferrari's home race in Monza.

and regarding the situation with Vettel and Vergne...well, the rules can't really do anything about it. especially because the drivers are of different teams. you're perfectly entitled to let other drivers past you, no matter if it's a call made by your superior or your own decision, nobody can argue with it. and even if they are perceived as the same team, then it's simply a team order which is legal nowadays.

i know it's not fair but when was the last time Red Bull were fair in f1?

Yeah - I remember Fisichella cutting Schumacher's tyre in the title decider in 2006, Brasil.

That's pretty disingenious phrasing on at least two levels. First, no Fisi did not set out to deliberatly, nor does he or any driver got the skills to do it, cut the tyre of MS' Ferrari. It was a close overtake, and if anything MS was the one cutting it too close. Second, it wasn't even decisive for the championship, even IF MS had gone to win the race, Alonso would still have been champion.

That's pretty disingenious phrasing on at least two levels. First, no Fisi did not set out to deliberatly, nor does he or any driver got the skills to do it, cut the tyre of MS' Ferrari. It was a close overtake, and if anything MS was the one cutting it too close. Second, it wasn't even decisive for the championship, even IF MS had gone to win the race, Alonso would still have been champion.

Fisico didn´t even cut MSC tyre. I know, many people think so as it definitely looks like that, but in fact MSC picked up some debris like in 98.

I can't believe people are so quickly dismissing the fact that -regardless of aleged orders or not- Vergne had nothing to gain. Why would you ruin your own race just so you can say "look, I held up the world champion"?

He made sure to open a can of worms for selfish reasons, but somehow forget in his haste that their are other teams on the grid too. And that he & Ferrari forcefully made it LEGAL for ALL teams to comply & apply team orders where they seem fit.

Yes, it technically allows sister/other teams to strategies and do what's best for them.... as Alonso & Ferrari so aptly put forth in their argument. So, now when Frank Tost tells Vergne to let Sebastian pass "because Vergne needs to take care of his tyres & not fight faster cars".... who are we say to it's wrong.

Nice job Alonso, who was not good enough to overtake Massa in Germany 2010. So we have the current situation where everyone is merrily using it to their advantage.

I think the Ricciardo/Vettel incident earlier on had to do something with it probably given that it nearly eliminated Vettel from the race.

Irrespective of the Ricciardo incident Vergne has 0 to gain by holding Vettel up and pissing RB off. It's not dissimilar to Coulthard jumping off all the way to the grandstand to let the championship leaders through back in 08. Coulthard didn't want the bad press, Vergne didn't want to shit where he eats. All that assuming there wasn't an order from the team, as far as I know there wasn't one but you can never be sure

Inter team orders arent explicitly legal (or illegal for that matter) but they are definitely against any sort of moral sporting code. They present an opportunity for wealthier teams owning sub-teams like RBR / engine maker teams like Ferrari (Sauber) and Merc (FI/Macca ) to benefit unfairly when required.

My 2 cents on this subject even as someone who would like to see Vettel crowned 3X champ this year

He made sure to open a can of worms for selfish reasons, but somehow forget in his haste that their are other teams on the grid too. And that he & Ferrari forcefully made it LEGAL for ALL teams to comply & apply team orders where they seem fit.

Yes, it technically allows sister/other teams to strategies and do what's best for them.... as Alonso & Ferrari so aptly put forth in their argument. So, now when Frank Tost tells Vergne to let Sebastian pass "because Vergne needs to take care of his tyres & not fight faster cars".... who are we say to it's wrong.

Nice job Alonso, who was not good enough to overtake Massa in Germany 2010. So we have the current situation where everyone is merrily using it to their advantage.

If that's the BS level this thread shall go to, I claim it's all Raikönnens fault for being let through by Massa in Brazil 2007. Or Hamiltons, for the same thing with Kova in Hockenheim '08.

Inter team orders arent explicitly legal (or illegal for that matter) but they are definitely against any sort of moral sporting code. They present an opportunity for wealthier teams owning sub-teams like RBR / engine maker teams like Ferrari (Sauber) and Merc (FI/Macca ) to benefit unfairly when required.

My 2 cents on this subject even as someone who would like to see Vettel crowned 3X champ this year

What moralistic means in F1 is that Alonso, if he were placed in 24th position start has to race two STR's, that can be nasty.On the other hands, Alonso may not have to race two Sauber, if he were to race some years a go.Now Sauber in form Alonso is in the position to race Sauber as well,... or not?

I would have to go and watch the race again but as far as I remember Vergne didn't only let Vettel through during that race. I'm pretty sure it was shown during the race that he also let Schumacher by as easily as Vettel. Or maybe it was the other TR, I'm not sure.

And i don´t see the whole media or the public in outrage because of this "incident". It´s not even really mentioned. So it didn´t seem to hurt F1´s reputation at all.

It's prejudicial to the interests of a competition though. If you cannot see the implications of having several teams, and how that gives an unfair advantage in relation to the other teams, nothing much that I can do.

I can't believe people are so quickly dismissing the fact that -regardless of aleged orders or not- Vergne had nothing to gain. Why would you ruin your own race just so you can say "look, I held up the world champion"?

Torro Rosso was much slower than RBR. Holding up Vettel would have gained nothing for Verge, in fact he would even lose some time defending his positon.

Redbull is much faster than almost all the teams not just STR. So using your logic, the whole field should open the door to Vettel the same way as STR because it is futile to fight him, and he would have caught the leading pack by the end of lap 1.

Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.

Looked to me like he was. Not to mention Canada and Monza, two examples where if any inter-team order thing existed, they would have been exercised.

It does seem like a conflict of interest and a slight advantage for Red Bull, but I cant feel too upset about it. It'd be hard to police as well, if the FIA wanted to try and put a stop to it. Most situations could be discussed beforehand and Toro Rosso drivers would probably know before they've ever even turned a wheel that they're to let Red Bulls by if they're coming through. And who would get punished for it?

It's prejudicial to the interests of a competition though. If you cannot see the implications of having several teams, and how that gives an unfair advantage in relation to the other teams, nothing much that I can do.

So you also complained, when Ferrari told Massa to stay away from Alonso in Korea, right?

Redbull is much faster than almost all the teams not just STR. So using your logic, the whole field should open the door to Vettel the same way as STR because it is futile to fight him, and he would have caught the leading pack by the end of lap 1.

When's the last time you've seen any of the backmarkers, who are at that point also actual backmarkers (not those having a good day, like Sato on Alonso), try to take a real fight to the front runners?

So you also complained, when Ferrari told Massa to stay away from Alonso in Korea, right?

Why don't you reply to the rest of my post? I think you are refusing to address it. So again:

A F1 entry consists in a team of two cars. A F1 team can run it in whichever way is wanted, and this applies for every single team. Which makes team orders perfectly OK.If there's a company that owns more than two cars, they are not playing in equal ground to the rest anymore. Which makes inter-team orders not acceptable, and it's what Red Bull is doing. Plus things like promoting the FIA rallying competition. It's a conflict of interests that shouldn't be allowed.

Why don't you reply to the rest of my post? I think you are refusing to address it. So again:

A F1 entry consists in a team of two cars. A F1 team can run it in whichever way is wanted, and this applies for every single team. Which makes team orders perfectly OK.If there's a company that owns more than two cars, they are not playing in equal ground to the rest anymore. Which makes inter-team orders not acceptable, and it's what Red Bull is doing. Plus things like promoting the FIA rallying competition. It's a conflict of interests that shouldn't be allowed.

Obviously you don´t get it.The term "prejudicial to the interests of a competition" doesn´t exclude teammates. The Driver´s World Championship is not a competition between drivers of different teams, but all drivers.

So in short: If you think, Vergne yielding to Vettel was violating "the interests of competition" then the same would be true for Alonso/Massa in Korea or other similar incidents.

The FIA made clear after 2010 that they don´t consider this stuff as a violation of the sporting regulations anymore and therefore didn´t prosecute neither the one nor the other.

Obviously you don´t get it.The term "prejudicial to the interests of a competition" doesn´t exclude teammates. The Driver´s World Championship is not a competition between drivers of different teams, but all drivers.

So in short: If you think, Vergne yielding to Vettel was violating "the interests of competition" then the same would be true for Alonso/Massa in Korea or other similar incidents.

The FIA made clear after 2010 that they don´t consider this stuff as a violation of the sporting regulations anymore and therefore didn´t prosecute neither the one nor the other.

Your demands on the other hand are just a result of double standards.

I desist.

Let's be honest, right now only 7 corporations and / individuals deem F1 worth the investment. The three bottom teams are laughable and STR is owned by RBR.

So that leaves us 7 of which FI and lotus are under constant financial stress. My point? If it wasn't so expensive we could complain about owners running two teams, until then ..... such is life.

I agree with 'fisti on the practical realities. Still, I don't like it. Having an easier ride because you have a "sister" team (whether through common ownership, engine deal or otherwise) isn't a good thing for F1 IMO. The difficulty is in proving that any inter-team orders occurred, and who you p*ss off when you punish them.

I'd hope the FIA would, at least, have a quiet word to RB to let them know that whilst they may have gotten away with it this time, it won't be tolerated in future.

What if Red Bull owned eight places on the grid, next to the Red Bulls itself? That's a potential eight team orders in one race. Sorry, I don't think inter-team orders aren't that much fun. In fact, the way Vergne jumped out of the way was an embarassment to F1. It wasn't his fault, of course, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Ferrari-Sauber, etc.

Fisico didn´t even cut MSC tyre. I know, many people think so as it definitely looks like that, but in fact MSC picked up some debris like in 98.

I call bullshit. Many reports tell there was rubber present on the front wing of Fisico.

/factcheck.

If that's the BS level this thread shall go to, I claim it's all Raikönnens fault for being let through by Massa in Brazil 2007. Or Hamiltons, for the same thing with Kova in Hockenheim '08.

Take your pick!

A bit offtopic maybe, but I think Massa was beat fair and square by Raikkonen. He was pushing like crazy to stay ahead (I think he would be more pleased if he could let Kimi pass at the finish line, which of course he would have done. It's a pride thing really).

So Vernge chose to move out of the way before the straight instead of being DRSed 5 seconds later, big freaking deal. Torro Rosso has been in the championship for how many years now and there has been absolutely no problem whatsoever.

I don't think there's much drama in this particular incident, but I do think that one person having a controlling interest in more than one team is a huge conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

Is this something we could control? Forget it's a STR vs RBR, have you never ever seen another driver letting other by easily because he saw no point in fighting with him at that stage? What do you suppose should be done about that?

This thread is laughable for that very reason, it's completely a product of bias, any other similar situation involving different teams wouldn't be looked at twice, the fact we are discussing this more than a week after the fact is telling me that Austin couldn't come soon enough.

So Vernge chose to move out of the way before the straight instead of being DRSed 5 seconds later, big freaking deal. Torro Rosso has been in the championship for how many years now and there has been absolutely no problem whatsoever.

Talk about trying desperately to make something out of nothing.

I don't think there's much drama in this particular incident, but I do think that one person having a controlling interest in more than one team is a huge conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

That. Learn to read please. It's a circus between TEAMS really, and not in one team itself, and that's something that shouldn't be tolerated.